Chalo Chatu:Writing better articles: Difference between revisions

Not all tone flaws are immediately obvious as bias, original research, or other policy problems, but may be relevance, register, or other content-presentation issues. A common one is the idea, often taught to debate students, that each section or even paragraph should introduce a key statement (a ''thesis''), then supporting evidence in additional sentences, and finish with a recapitulation of the original thesis in different wording.  This style is redundant and brow-beating, and should not be used in encyclopedic writing.<ref>For an example found in, and removed from, a high-profile article, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calculus&type=revision&diff=799020205&oldid=799019642 here].</ref>  Another is attempting to make bits of material "pop" (an undue weight problem), such as with excessive emphasis, the inclusion of hyperbolic adjectives and adverbs, or the use of unusual synonyms or loaded words.  Just present the sourced information without embellishment, agenda, or fanfare.  Another presentation problem is "info-dumping" by presenting information the form of a long, bulletized list when it would be better given as normal prose paragraphs. This is especially true when the items in the list are not of equal importance or are not really comparable in some other way, and need context. Using explanatory prose also helps identify and remove trivia.

== Notes ==